I have to ask — you aren’t an atheist intent on trying to trip people up and make them lose faith are you? The only reason I ask is that the line of “questioning” (which really isn’t questioning) is something I’ve seen MANY times from atheist trolls on other boards. Your last thread, and this one also have shown that some of your “explanations” in response to people’s arguments against your point of view have been rather self-righteous in tone...

Be careful because pride is often a sure sign that you haven’t got things as well-figured out as you think... God himself warns us about that. It’s something we ALL have to keep in mind.

I’m curious as to what your ultimate goal is here. Are you trying to say that we should just forget about the Second Coming, and that we should just forget about trying to tell people about the Gospel? Are you saying that we here on Earth have been FORSAKEN BY GOD? Are you saying that St. John in writing Revelation was completely LYING? Are you saying that JESUS MUST HAVE LIED - because according to you the things he spoke of as happening in the future have ALREADY HAPPENED???

Just what is your ULTIMATE goal in these conversations? Why not just come out and say what you’re trying to say instead of twisting things around so badly to try to PROVE your conclusion without admitting what it really is?

I really hope for your sake that no-one turns their back on God as a result of your efforts to prove your opinion here...

I have to ask  you arent an atheist intent on trying to trip people up and make them lose faith are you? The only reason I ask is that the line of questioning (which really isnt questioning) is something Ive seen MANY times from atheist trolls on other boards. Your last thread, and this one also have shown that some of your explanations in response to peoples arguments against your point of view have been rather self-righteous in tone... Be careful because pride is often a sure sign that you havent got things as well-figured out as you think... God himself warns us about that. Its something we ALL have to keep in mind. Im curious as to what your ultimate goal is here. Are you trying to say that we should just forget about the Second Coming, and that we should just forget about trying to tell people about the Gospel? Are you saying that we here on Earth have been FORSAKEN BY GOD? Are you saying that St. John in writing Revelation was completely LYING? Are you saying that JESUS MUST HAVE LIED - because according to you the things he spoke of as happening in the future have ALREADY HAPPENED??? Just what is your ULTIMATE goal in these conversations? Why not just come out and say what youre trying to say instead of twisting things around so badly to try to PROVE your conclusion without admitting what it really is? I really hope for your sake that no-one turns their back on God as a result of your efforts to prove your opinion here...

I only posted scripture. If some people have a hard time believing it, what's that to me?

Is this true? Tit 2:11 For the saving grace of God was manifested to all men,

And is this true? - Mat 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Should we pick and choose the truth we choose to believe? If we don't like some truth, then, it's OK to discard it? Seems some think that way. Lol. Again, I just posted scripture. It's either true, or, it's not. :) So what is it? :)

Are you saying that St. John in writing Revelation was completely LYING? Are you saying that JESUS MUST HAVE LIED - because according to you the things he spoke of as happening in the future have ALREADY HAPPENED???

Jesus didn't lie. He came back, just like he told the disciples he would.

We haven't lost anything. We are the saints living in the millenium.

It is those who say that Jesus didn't come back who make him a liar, not the ones who say he did.

Mat 24:34 Remember that all these things will happen before the people now living have all died.

People change that verse to suit their needs because they don't understand everything. But, he did in fact come back. Now if we say he didn't, that's when we make him a liar. :)

Joh 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

I was moreso inferring your motive in posting such a thread as indicated in your LAST thread. You seem to be engaging in a pattern of trolling.

And, you said you only posted scripture? That is not true. You are clever, yes that is true. However, you are the one who added their interpretation of the verses chosen and selected, and arranged them according to your motive, and DECLARED YOUR OPINION & INTERPRETATION in the first place.

That’s what I meant about being careful, even if you WERE being well-intentioned, that you may be leading people astray because of the WAY in which you present things...

I’ve listened to more than a few God-fearing/God-loving people who have helped me immensely in my understanding of our Lord, and scripture. But, when they did so they didn’t try to twist things to their liking, and they never really tried to make people CONVINCED they were right in order to let me see their point.

I also don’t get a good feeling from your attitude, and that tells me a lot really. I do listen to what God tells me within my spirit, and everything I’m feeling right now is telling me that you are not being honest, either with yourself, or us...

Oh, and one other thing...
I’m a little curious as to why after 2 years of not commenting here at FR that you have decided to come back to argue this particular concept?

Regardless, I think I’ll let others chime in with you on these things as I have more important things to do than be teased by a troll...

Oh, and one other thing... Im a little curious as to why after 2 years of not commenting here at FR that you have decided to come back to argue this particular concept? Regardless, I think Ill let others chime in with you on these things as I have more important things to do than be teased by a troll...

No troll here. The Christian forum I was on went down and another poster from there said she was posting on this site. So, I came over.

The gospel could NOT have been preached to ALL people’s of the world — for gosh sakes HALF of the world was presumably NOT IN CONTACT with each other from BEFORE Christ was born (AT LEAST) till Leif Erickson - much less all the islands in the oceans...

To think otherwise requires a complete belief in things that the scientists/anthropologists/archaeologists who study on this subject, and BELIEVE they somehow WERE, would admit that SOMEDAY they could POSSIBLY — however remote they think the possiblity is — could be wrong.

The OP postulates that all the peoples of the Earth — ALL OF THEM were in communication in the 25 years mentioned in the OP. One cannot POSSIBLY PROVE THAT, and therefore to rely on THAT as the basis of one’s ENTIRE interpretation over such a doctrine as important to Christians as this is, IMHO, VERY DANGEROUS.

Rom 16:25 and the preaching of Jesus Christ... Rom 16:26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

Liberty, I think you have this guy figured out. He may be sincere, but he is sincerely wrong, and he does have some company here at FR. His scriptures are cherry-picked to prove his point, and, as you say, carefully arranged. I also noticed that his last post, prior to these recent ones, was back in 2006.

I have noticed that people with his viewpoint, that we are living in the milennium, tend to be very dismissive and condescending of those of us who believe otherwise, and that, I don’t understand. Why be so divisive? Why intentionally start threads that are meant to create doubt in the hearts and minds of Christians believing in the blessed hope of Christ’s imminent return?

Jeff, why don’t you give a listen to David Jeremiah’s teaching series on the book of Daniel for an excellent, comprehensive view of the end times? He takes great pains to carefully lay out the prophecies of Daniel. I think you might find his teaching very interesting.

17
posted on 03/27/2009 7:36:44 AM PDT
by ChocChipCookie
("Let his days be few, and let another take his office." Psalm 109:8)

Col 1:23 ...and not moved away from the hope of the gospel which ye heard, which was preached in ALL creation under heaven; whereof I Paul was made a minister.

Tit 2:11 For the saving grace of God was manifested to ALL men,

Only the deluded would say that scripture is from hell.

Of course, some people didn't hear the gospel last century either. What about them? Do they get a magic pass and no judgement? Why do only all of the "last" generation have to hear the gospel? Because if they didn't, the same grace afforded to those who didn't hear it in times past wouldn't apply to them? That's excellent logic. 0_o (rolling eyes) 0_o

>>>Why be so divisive? Why intentionally start threads that are meant to create doubt in the hearts and minds of Christians believing in the blessed hope of Christs imminent return?

Is posting truth being divisive? I posted scripture. What did Jesus say? Mat 10:34-37. As for David Jeremiah, I have the Holy Spirit. I believe he is supposed to be the teacher. At least that's who I heal the sick and cast out demons through. Maybe people on FR's religion forum don't believe in those things either. Jesus obviously meant something else when he said believers would do those things. 0_o Lol. :D

>> The Gospel was preached to all nations already, 1960 years ago. << Sorry, OPREV, but the Gospel was NOT preached in the New World, Japan, Australia, etc. >> made known to All nations for the obedience of faith: << Theres a difference between God making his law known to all the world, through nature, and the Gospel being preached to the whole world.

Of course, some people didn't hear the gospel last century either. What about them? Do they get a magic pass and no judgement? Why do only all of the "last" generation have to hear the gospel? Because if they didn't, the same grace afforded to those who didn't hear it in times past wouldn't apply to them?

>> Actually, Paul said it, not me. People seem to pick and choose the parts that suit them, and ignore the parts that don’t. ;) <<

You mean like your omissions in your last vanity about “after the thousand years”?

Or how about your omissions on this subject where Paul tells men that they are to love their wives, like Christ loves the church, which means, of course, that they should die if it benefits their wives. The wife of a good man need not nag or have dominion over him because he fulfills his duty towards her, taking her into consideration in every decision he makes.

>>How about this: Yah'shua spent two days in Samaria with the Gentiles then returned to Galilee. See John 4 A day is like a thousand years After two thousand years Yah'shua will return for His Chosen People.

How about -

Jas 5:8 _You_ also wait patiently. Establish [or, strengthen] your* hearts, because the Arrival of the Lord has drawn near.

James told them to get their hearts ready, or prepare, because, "this was it!" The more I read this, the more it looks like the Apostles were pleading with the early church to be on their best behavior because Christ was in fact coming soon. Every statement was, don't judge, stop complaining, love each other, pray a lot. These guys were worried. Look at these statements -

1Co 1:7 So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ:

1Co 4:5 Wherefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come,

1Co 7:29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;

Paul believed the time was so short he told husbands to act as if they didn't even have wives!

Php 3:20 For our citizenship exists in [the] heavens, from where also we eagerly await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ,

These people were "eagerly" waiting for, or "fully expecting" him to show up!

2Th 3:5 And the Lord direct your hearts into the love of God, and into the patient waiting for Christ.

1Jn 2:28 And now, little children, abide in him; that,when he shall appear,we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.

John didn't expect these people to die and go to heaven, he thought Jesus was coming in their life time and he told them to be ready so they wouldn't be ashamed when he showed up. If you die, you would go to meet him, not the other way around. LOL. :D

Jas 5:7 Be patient therefore, brethren, until the coming of the Lord.

James didn't tell those people that Jesus would be coming many centuries later. These were Apostles. None like them have ever been here since. They had God's ear more than anyone. God would not have led them on to think that, he was coming quickly, only to have it draw out 2000 years. These people were definitely worried about the condition of their flocks at the appearance of Jesus. For them, this was it. :) There was no millenium wait for them. It was their time. And we live in ours. :)

>> Of course, some people didnt hear the gospel last century either. What about them? Do they get a magic pass and no judgement? << No. Thats why Christians are obliged to spread the gospel: to spare the world from Hell. >> Why do only all of the last generation have to hear the gospel? << The rest of your questions seem to proceed from a false presumption that those who have not heard the gospel are spared from judgment.

1Ti 2:12 But I permit not a woman .. to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness.

The immediate context of that passage is behavior at that specific church - not society in general. You are neither her husband or pastor, therefor you cannot claim that authority either. You application of the term woman was in a derogatory manner, completely opposite that used by Christ. You further choose to ignore Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

And of course you would want to skip over Paul's writtings in Romans 16:1 I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant (diakonos) of the church which is at Cenchrea: 2 That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer(Prostatis) of many, and of myself also.

Diakonos appears in both masculine and feminine cases in the Greek, depending upon the gender of the one it modifies. In this instance, however, the rule is broken. Diakonos is masculine, even though it refers to a woman. It seems clear that Paul wants to communicate that Phoebe is more than someone who waits on tables. Paul recognizes her as full and respected minister of the Word as, for instance, Timothy or Titus, or even Paul himself.

Prostatis literally means "one who stands in front or before." It is otherwise translated "to set over, to appoint with authority, to lead, protect, govern, preside, superintend, direct, rule, stand before others, set over others." Phoebe was a benefactor because she was in a position of leadership where she could render an authoritative and effective ministry of the Word. In short, Paul commends Phoebe to the Romans because she was a minister  preacher, teacher, pastor  who was in charge (the pastor) "of the church which is at Cenchrea."

Now, if you want to continue to grossly insult a sister in Christ, you will at least know you are out of line.

33
posted on 03/27/2009 2:24:04 PM PDT
by Godzilla
(If the first step in an argument is wrong everything that follows is wrong. ~C.S. Lewis, The Problem)

>> Actually, Paul said it, not me. People seem to pick and choose the parts that suit them, and ignore the parts that dont. ;) <<

You mean like your omissions in your last vanity about after the thousand years?

Or how about your omissions on this subject where Paul tells men that they are to love their wives, like Christ loves the church, which means, of course, that they should die if it benefits their wives. The wife of a good man need not nag or have dominion over him because he fulfills his duty towards her, taking her into consideration in every decision he makes.

Which post # was the 1000 years in? I probably made many references, lol. ;) :D

Did you want me to give a whole sermon on women? Lol! I know the verses, and most of them are 100% common sense. Guys should know this stuff anyway. Apparently Paul was dealing with some serious dolts, LOL. :D But, on the point, hey, I'm not married to anyone here. Just some chicks here think they can strut around busting guy's chops like they were guys or something. If someone wants to hit, I will hit back, and where it counts. :) You ever see gazelles eat a lion? Doesn't work that way. :) An arrogant woman is.. heck, they should just be laid out. LOL. :D Gazelles don't eat lions. It's the other way around. :) Satan has done a lot to undermine the natural order God put forth. :) Cuz Satan's a punk yo. ;) :d

I have a feeling a certain OP takes this as proof that there will be no women in heaven: ...when he opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven for about half an hour..- Revelations 8:1 LOL. Now...that is funny but we'll be there! :)

1Ti 2:12 But I permit not a woman .. to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness. The immediate context of that passage is behavior at that specific church - not society in general. You are neither her husband or pastor, therefor you cannot claim that authority either. You application of the term woman was in a derogatory manner, completely opposite that used by Christ. You further choose to ignore Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And of course you would want to skip over Paul's writtings in Romans 16:1 I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant (diakonos) of the church which is at Cenchrea: 2 That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer(Prostatis) of many, and of myself also. Diakonos appears in both masculine and feminine cases in the Greek, depending upon the gender of the one it modifies. In this instance, however, the rule is broken. Diakonos is masculine, even though it refers to a woman. It seems clear that Paul wants to communicate that Phoebe is more than someone who waits on tables. Paul recognizes her as full and respected minister of the Word as, for instance, Timothy or Titus, or even Paul himself. Prostatis literally means "one who stands in front or before." It is otherwise translated "to set over, to appoint with authority, to lead, protect, govern, preside, superintend, direct, rule, stand before others, set over others." Phoebe was a benefactor because she was in a position of leadership where she could render an authoritative and effective ministry of the Word. In short, Paul commends Phoebe to the Romans because she was a minister  preacher, teacher, pastor  who was in charge (the pastor) "of the church which is at Cenchrea." Now, if you want to continue to grossly insult a sister in Christ, you will at least know you are out of line.

If you want to continue to uphold the arrogance of the woman, be my guest. Try looking at the natural order God made. You see women in the NFL? Or boxing the heavyweight guys? NOPE. Should give an idea of how God made things. Show me a verse, any verse in the Bible where Godly women smack talked men of God. Didn't happen, and if it did, God woulda whacked 'em for it. If a girl wants to act like a man, I'll treat her like one. If she can't handle it, then she should stow it. :) Or we could always step into the boxing ring. I love boxing. Awesome sport. I wonder who would hold out? Huh, probably the girl. Yeah, the girl. :)

1Co 7:29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;

Paul believed the time was so short he told husbands to act as if they didn't even have wives!

The time is short for everyone living as no one knows the moment they die. Paul was instructing those going to teach and thought that it was be easier to be as he was...single.

Php 3:20 For our citizenship exists in [the] heavens, from where also we eagerly await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ,

These people were "eagerly" waiting for, or "fully expecting" him to show up!

They are eagerly awaiting their time to be with Him IN HEAVEN, not for Him to show up.

1Jn 2:28 And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.

John didn't expect these people to die and go to heaven, he thought Jesus was coming in their life time and he told them to be ready so they wouldn't be ashamed when he showed up. If you die, you would go to meet him, not the other way around. LOL. :D

There John is addressing the elect, the little children. They are the man child, the witnesses and they must make a stand in the end of days. They will stand and when they face Him they/we will not be ashamed.

Jas 5:7 Be patient therefore, brethren, until the coming of the Lord.

James didn't tell those people that Jesus would be coming many centuries later. These were Apostles. None like them have ever been here since. They had God's ear more than anyone. God would not have led them on to think that, he was coming quickly, only to have it draw out 2000 years. These people were definitely worried about the condition of their flocks at the appearance of Jesus. For them, this was it. :) There was no millenium wait for them. It was their time. And we live in ours. :)

The last part of that verse 5:7 and 8 is...Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, and hath long patience for it, until he receive the early and latter rain. Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.

That is how I understand those verses. We are looking at them with a different view in mind. I'll keep searching for the ultimate verse that truly nails this...and I know you will too. :>)

If you want to continue to uphold the arrogance of the woman, be my guest. Try looking at the natural order God made. You see women in the NFL? Or boxing the heavyweight guys? NOPE. Should give an idea of how God made things. Show me a verse, any verse in the Bible where Godly women smack talked men of God. Didn't happen, and if it did, God woulda whacked 'em for it. If a girl wants to act like a man, I'll treat her like one. If she can't handle it, then she should stow it. :) Or we could always step into the boxing ring. I love boxing. Awesome sport. I wonder who would hold out? Huh, probably the girl. Yeah, the girl. :)

So you are elevating yourself to that of a man of God. LOL so much for your testimony today oprev. Perhaps you need to read your Bible less selectively

"If anyone wants to be first, he shall be last of all, and servant of all" (Mark 9:35, NASB). May be then you would be more believeable. Your attitude here is not better than that of Absalom.

42
posted on 03/27/2009 2:49:09 PM PDT
by Godzilla
(If the first step in an argument is wrong everything that follows is wrong. ~C.S. Lewis, The Problem)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.